1019

People v. MacabalangG.R. No. 168694November 27, 2006Art. III, § 12

FACTS:Appellant was charged before the RTC for violation of Section 15, R.A. 6425, by selling

and distributing to a poseur buyer about 1,972.6 grams of “shabu”, a regulated drug. Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.

The facts, establishing the case against the appellant, was testified to by the following: PO1 Christopher Guste (PO1 Guste), the poseur-buyer; PO1 Ronnie Fabia (PO1 Fabia), member of the buy-bust operation team; Chief Inspector Leonardo Suan (Inspector Suan), head of the buy-bust team; and Senior Inspector Sonia S. Lodovico, a Forensic Chemist.

On 21 July 1999, at around 9:00 o’clock in the morning, Inspector Suan, Deputy Chief of the Intelligence Division of Narcotics Command, received a report from a confidential informant that a certain Amin was looking for a buyer of shabu. Inspector Suan instructed his informant to contract with Amin for two (2) kilos of shabu.

Two (2) hours later, a fourteen-man buy-bust team was formed by Inspector Suan, with PO1 Guste acting as poseur-buyer. After the briefing, Inspector Suan gave PO1 Guste two (2) genuine P1,000.00 bills, marked with letters "CG" and boodle money amounting to P1,000,000.00.

At 6:00 o’clock in the evening of the same day, the team proceeded to the fourth level parking lot of SM City, North Avenue, Quezon City, the meeting place designated by appellant. They observed the area for two (2) hours and positioned themselves within the vicinity. PO1 Guste stayed outside the car with the informant while the others were inside their separate vehicles.

Two hours thereafter, a Mitsubishi Lancer car, with Plate No. UTD 147, approached the parking lot. Appellant alighted from the car. PO1 Guste and the informant approached him and appropriate introductions were made. Appellant then went to a green Toyota Corolla car, parked next to his car, bearing Plate No. WBH 491. He opened the rear compartment, took out a yellow box, and gave it to PO1 Guste. When appellant asked for the money, PO1 Guste invited the latter over into his own car, which was parked about ten (10) meters away. Upon reaching his car, PO1 Guste checked the contents of the box and found two (2) plastic bags containing white crystalline substance. He immediately gave the money to appellant and stepped out of the car. As a pre-arranged signal to his police companions to close in, PO1 Guste removed his cap. The rest of the team members converged to where PO1 Guste, the informant and appellant were situated, introduced themselves as policemen, and apprehended appellant.

Appellant was brought to the Narcotics Command (Narcom) office at Camp Crame, Quezon City for investigation. PO1 Guste executed an affidavit narrating the incident. The carton containing shabu and the boodle money were turned over to the investigator. On the following day, the confiscated carton containing two (2) plastic bags was brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where they were examined by Forensic Chemist Sonia S. Lodovico. The test results confirmed that the white crystalline substance sold by appellant was shabu, weighing a total of 1,972.6 grams.

ISSUE:

Prepared by: Mary Louise M. Ramos 1

1019

Whether accused’s right to counsel was violated

RULING: Admittedly, it is settled that the signature of the accused in the "Receipt of Property

Seized" is inadmissible in evidence if it was obtained without the assistance of counsel. The signature of the accused on such a receipt is a declaration against his interest and a tacit admission of the crime charged. However, while it is true that appellant signed receipt of the property seized unassisted by counsel, this only renders inadmissible the receipt itself.

In fact, in the case at bar, the evidentiary value of the Receipt of Property Seized is irrelevant in light of the ample evidence proving appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution was able to prove that a valid buy-bust operation was conducted to entrap appellant. The testimony of the poseur-buyer clearly established that the sale of shabu by appellant was consummated. The corpus delicti, which is the shabu, was presented in court and confirmed by the other members of the buy-bust team. They acknowledged that they were the same drugs placed in two (2) plastic bags seized from appellant.

Besides, the prosecution did not present in evidence any receipt of property seized relating to the shabu confiscated from the appellant. Appellant may have testified as to having signed such receipt, but it was not introduced in evidence. What was presented before the Court was a receipt attesting to the seizure from the appellant of two vehicles he was in possession at that time of his arrest, and not that of a shabu in question. Considering that appellant is charged with the sale of shabu, and not of those vehicles, any irregularity that would have attended the signing of the receipt would bear no relevance to the crime for which appellant was charged.

Prepared by: Mary Louise M. Ramos 2